Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > > I believe that we have come to some kind > of consensus here that strongly suggests > why the use of technologies such as RDDL > and RDF have value: to annotate and > correlate the interpretations. As has > been stated, the use of the URI to point > to a separate interpretive document is > not mandated, but very useful. The > role of the URI in the XML namespace as > a syntactical device to disambiguate names > is fixed, not arguable. The use of it > to cite an interpretive document is not > fixed, but it is wise. To know what > some authority asserts it means, we have > to ask the cat. > We can say (as a start -- could use some wordsmithing perhaps): "The meaning of a URI(ref) as intended by its authority is defined by the set of assertions obtained when the URI is referenced. When the media type of such a representation is: application/rdf+xml, then the meaning of the represented URI is given by the graph as per the RDF model theory." JonathanReceived on Thursday, 8 August 2002 13:10:36 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:55:42 GMT